Probably one of the most important reasons for preempting local regulation of tobacco and nicotine products is the observation that city and town officials are not typically steeped in public health training, nor do they possess backgrounds in science. Afterall, most of the day-to-day work of a city council involves making sure that roads get paved and budgets are balanced. In other words, local officials are typically not trained to make public health policy decisions that have such significant consequences, like banning sales or use of certain nicotine products.

As a result, local governments are at the mercy of experts and activists when it comes to receiving and deliberating over information about any particular issue. In many cases, officials are pressured to rush anti-nicotine regulations through the process by declaring an emergency and side-stepping any drawn out debate on the matter. This is a move informed mostly by emotion over-seasoned with scary out-of-context data about youth use.

Preemption can be a remedy to the manipulation of local officials’ feelings about smoking, vaping, and substance use. Restricting decisions about public health regulation to a more deliberative state legislature also provides more opportunities for all stakeholders to have their voices heard.